Laparoscopic and robot-assisted one-stage resection of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases: a pilot study

Robotic liver parenchymal transection techniques: a comprehensive overview and classification

Robotic liver surgery is experiencing a period of great development, but some hurdles still need to be overcome. Parenchymal transection remains one of the most technically challenging steps. The lack of dedicated instruments and the flourishing of several techniques didn't allow surgeons to reach a standard technique so far. The aim of the present paper is to provide an overview of the different robotic liver transection techniques described to date, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of each one. We conducted an extensive search on PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science, inserting the following keywords: "robotic liver transection, robotic hepatic transection" and focusing particularly on technical reports and paper regarding new surgical methods. This search resulted in a total of 13 different surgical techniques. All the methods described can be classified into two categories the "hybrid techniques" and the "fully robotic techniques" which are based, respectively, on the combined use of laparoscopic and robotic instrumentation or exclusively robotic devices. Another fundamental difference is the division between "one-surgeon" and "two-surgeon techniques", which depends on the level of expertise required of the assistant surgeon at the operating table. This is the first comprehensive review on this topic. Although the existing literature does not allow one technique to be established as superior to the others, the adoption of a standardized method of robotic hepatic transection is highly desirable to optimize surgical results and to allow better comparability of outcomes within the scientific community.

Positioning of Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Laparoscopic to Robot-Assisted Liver Resection

Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) is widely accepted in the surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) through international consensus conferences and the development of difficulty classifications. LLR has been reported to result in earlier postoperative recovery and fewer postoperative complications than open liver resection (OLR) for HCC. However, the prevalence of liver cirrhosis, obesity, the elderly, HCC recurrence (repeat liver resection), and major resection must be considered for LLR for HCC. Some systematic reviews, meta-analysis studies, and large cohort studies indicated that LLR is technically feasible for selected patients with HCC with these factors that led to less intraoperative blood loss, fewer transfusions and postoperative complication incidences, and shorter hospital stays than OLR. Furthermore, some reported LLR prevents postoperative loss of independence. No difference was reported in long-term outcomes among patients with HCC who underwent LLR and OLR; however, some recent reports indicated better long-term outcomes with LLR. In recent years, robot-assisted liver resection (RALR) has gradually become popular, and its short- and long-term results for HCC are not different from those of LLR. Additionally, RALR is expected to become the mainstay of minimally invasive surgery in the future.

Robot-assisted liver resection: the real benefit so far

BACKGROUND

Minimally invasive liver resection is associated with lower perioperative morbidity and shorter hospital stay. However, the added benefit of the robotic platform over conventional laparoscopy is a matter of ongoing investigation.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an up-to-date and balanced evaluation of the benefits and shortcomings of robotic liver surgery for the modern hepatobiliary surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Advantages of a robotic approach to liver resection include a shortened learning curve, the ability to complete more extensive or complex minimally invasive operations, and integrated fluorescence guidance. However, the robotic platform remains limited by a paucity of parenchymal transection devices, complete lack of haptic feedback, and added operating time associated with docking and instrument exchange. Like laparoscopic hepatectomy, robotic hepatectomy may provide patients with more rapid recovery and a shorter hospital stay, which can help offset the substantial costs of robot acquisition and maintenance. The oncologic outcomes of robotic hepatectomy appear to be equivalent to laparoscopic and open hepatectomy for appropriately selected patients.

The impact of robotics in liver surgery: A worldwide systematic review and short-term outcomes meta-analysis on 2,728 cases

BACKGROUND

The dissemination of robotic liver surgery is slow-paced and must face the obstacle of demonstrating advantages over open and laparoscopic (LLS) approaches. Our objective was to show the current position of robotic liver surgery (RLS) worldwide and to identify if improved short-term outcomes are observed, including secondary meta-analyses for type of resection, etiology, and cost analysis.

METHODS

A PRISMA-based systematic review was performed to identify manuscripts comparing RLS vs open or LLS approaches. Quality analysis was performed using the Newcatle-Ottawa score. Statistical analysis was performed after heterogeneity test and fixed- or random-effect models were chosen accordingly.

RESULTS

After removing duplications, 2728 RLS cases were identified from the final set of 150 manuscripts. More than 75% of the cases have been performed on malignancies. Meta-analysis from the 38 comparative reports showed that RLS may offer improved short-term outcomes compared to open procedures in most of the variables screened. Compared to LLS, some advantages may be observed in favour of RLS for major resections in terms of operative time, hospital stay and rate of complications. Cost analyses showed an increased cost per procedure of around US$5000.

CONCLUSIONS

The advantages of RLS still need to be demonstrated although early results are promising. Advantages vs open approach are demonstrated. Compared to laparoscopic surgery, minor perioperative advantages may be observed for major resections although cost analyses are still unfavorable to the robotic approach.

One-Stage Total Laparoscopic Treatment for Colorectal Cancer With Synchronous Metastasis. Is It Safe and Feasible?

Liver is the main target organ for colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases. It is estimated that ~25% of CRC patients have synchronous metastases at diagnosis, and about 60% of CRC patients will develop metastases during the follow up. Although several teams have performed simultaneous laparoscopic resections (SLR) of liver and colorectal lesions, the feasibility and safety of this approach is still widely debated and few studies on this topic are present in the literature. The purpose of this literature review is to understand the state of the art of SLR and to clarify the potential benefits and limitations of this approach. Several studies have shown that SLR can be performed safely and with short-term outcomes similarly to the separated procedures. Simultaneous laparoscopic colorectal and hepatic resections combine the advantages of one stage surgery with those of laparoscopic surgery. Several reports compared the short-term outcomes of one stage laparoscopic resection with open resections and showed a similar or inferior amount of blood loss, a similar or lower complication rate, and a significant reduction of hospital stay for laparoscopic surgery respect to open surgery but much longer operating times for the laparoscopic technique. Few retrospective studies compared long term outcomes of laparoscopic one stage surgery with the outcomes of open one stage surgery and did not identify any differences about disease free survival and the overall survival. In conclusion, hepatic and colorectal SLR are a safe and effective approach characterized by less intraoperative blood loss, faster recovery of intestinal function, and shorter length of postoperative hospital stay. Moreover, laparoscopic approach is associated to lower rates of surgical complications without significant differences in the long-term outcomes compared to the open surgery.

Robotic surgery for colorectal liver metastases resection: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The role of robotic surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLMs) has never been investigated in large series.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was carried out on PubMed and Cochrane libraries.

RESULTS

We selected nine studies between 2008 and 2021. Two hundred sixty-two patients were included. One hundred thirty-one patients underwent simultaneous resections. The mean blood loss was 309.4 ml (range, 200-450 ml), the mean operative time was 250.5 min (range, 198.5-449.0 min). The mean length of hospital stay was 7.98 days (range, 4.5 to 12 days). The overall postoperative mortality was 0.4%. The overall morbidity rate was 37.0%, Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications were 8.4%. The mean 3-year overall survival was 55.25% (range, 44.4-66.1%), the mean 3-year disease free survival was 37% (range, 33.3-41.9%) CONCLUSION: We can conclude that robotic-assisted surgery might be considered as a technical upgrade option for minimally invasive approach to CRCLM resections even for simultaneous operations and challenging cases.

The Italian Consensus on minimally invasive simultaneous resections for synchronous liver metastasis and primary colorectal cancer: A Delphi methodology

At the time of diagnosis synchronous colorectal cancer, liver metastases (SCRLM) account for 15-25% of patients. If primary tumour and synchronous liver metastases are resectable, good results may be achieved performing surgical treatment incorporated into the chemotherapy regimen. So far, the possibility of simultaneous minimally invasive (MI) surgery for SCRLM has not been extensively investigated. The Italian surgical community has captured the need and undertaken the effort to establish a National Consensus on this topic. Four main areas of interest have been analysed: patients' selection, procedures, techniques, and implementations. To establish consensus, an adapted Delphi method was used through as many reiterative rounds were needed. Systematic literature reviews were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses instructions. The Consensus took place between February 2019 and July 2020. Twenty-six Italian centres participated. Eighteen clinically relevant items were identified. After a total of three Delphi rounds, 30-tree recommendations reached expert consensus establishing the herein presented guidelines. The Italian Consensus on MI surgery for SCRLM indicates possible pathways to optimise the treatment for these patients as consensus papers express a trend that is likely to become shortly a standard procedure for clinical pictures still on debate. As matter of fact, no RCT or relevant case series on simultaneous treatment of SCRLM are available in the literature to suggest guidelines. It remains to be investigated whether the MI technique for the simultaneous treatment of SCRLM maintain the already documented benefit of the two separate surgeries.

Simultaneous Robot Assisted Colon and Liver Resection for Metastatic Colon Cancer

Introduction

Simultaneous robot assisted colon and liver resections are being performed more frequently at present due to the expanded adoption of the robotic platform for surgical management of metastatic colon cancer. However, this approach has not been studied in detail with only case series available in the literature. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current body of evidence on the feasibility of performing simultaneous robotic colon and liver resections.

Methods

A systematic review was performed through PubMed to identify relevant articles describing simultaneous colon and liver resections for metastatic colon cancer.

Results

A total of 28 patients underwent simultaneous resections robotically with an average operative time of 420.3 minutes and average blood loss of 275.6 ml. Postoperative stay was 8.6 days on average with all cases achieving negative surgical margins.

Conclusions

Robotic simultaneous resection of colorectal cancer with liver metastases is technically feasible and seems oncologically equivalent to open or laparoscopic surgery. Further studies are urgently needed to assess benefits of robotic surgery in the patient population.

Simultaneous robotic-assisted resection of colorectal cancer and synchronous liver metastases: a systematic review

Simultaneous resections of primary colorectal cancer (CRC) and synchronous colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) have emerged as safe and efficient procedures for selected patients. Besides the traditional open approach for simultaneous resections, similar outcomes have been reported for minimally invasive approaches. Over the past years, a number of studies have sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of simultaneous robotic-assisted resections (SRAR) for patients with synchronous CRC and CRLM. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the safety, technical feasibility and outcomes of SRAR of the primary CRC and CRLM. A comprehensive review of the literature was undertaken. Nine studies comprising a total of 29 patients (16 males) who underwent SRAR were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary tumor site was the rectum in 22 (76%) patients and the colon in 7 (24%) patients. A minor liver resection was performed in the majority of the cases (n = 24; 82%). The median operative time and estimated blood loss were 399.5 min (range 300-682) and 274 ml (range 10-780 ml), respectively. No cases of conversion to open were reported. The median LOS was 7 days (range 2-28 days). All patients reportedly underwent R0 resection. Overall and major morbidity rates were 38% and 7%, respectively, while no perioperative deaths were reported. Despite the limited number of studies, SRAR seems to be a safe and efficient minimally invasive approach for highly selected patients always implemented in the context of multidisciplinary patient management.

Robotic simultaneous resection for colorectal liver metastasis: feasibility for all types of liver resection

BACKGROUND

A laparoscopic approach is increasingly being utilized in simultaneous colorectal and liver resection (SCLR) for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis. However, this approach is technically challenging and hence has not been widely adopted. Robotic surgical systems could potentially overcome this problem. We aim to describe the feasibility and outcomes of robotic SCLR for colorectal carcinoma with liver metastasis.

METHODS

The medical records of 12 patients who underwent robotic SCLR for colorectal cancer with liver metastasis between January 2008 and September 2018 were reviewed retrospectively.

RESULTS

The mean age was 59 years (range, 37-77 years). The liver resections were comprised of two right hepatectomies, one left hepatectomy, one left lateral sectionectomy, one segmentectomy of S3 and wedge resection (segment 7), one caudate lobectomy, one associated liver partition and portal vein ligation for staged hepatectomy, and five wedge resections involving segments 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8. The colorectal procedures involved seven low-anterior resections, two anterior resections, two right hemicolectomies, and one left hemicolectomy. The mean operative time was 449 min (range, 135-682 min) with a mean estimated blood loss of 274.3 mL (range, 40-780 mL). The mean length of hospital stay was 12 days (range, 5-28 days). No patients required conversion to laparotomy. Liver resection-related complications were two liver abscesses (Clavien-Dindo classification, one grade II and one grade III) and one case of ascites (grade I), whereas colorectal resection-related complications included one anastomosis leak (grade III) and one superficial wound infection (grade II). There were no deaths reported within 30 days of the procedure. With a mean follow-up duration of 31.5 ± 26.1 months, the overall survival and disease-free survival values were 75.2 and 47.1 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Robotic SCLR for colorectal neoplasm with liver metastasis can be performed safely even in cases requiring major liver resections, especially in a specialized center with a well-trained team.

Short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery for rectal cancer: a single-center retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to clarify the short- and long-term outcomes of robotic surgery with or without lateral lymph node dissection (LLND) for rectal cancer at Fujita Health University Hospital, Aichi, Japan, during a self-pay period.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 115 consecutive patients who underwent robotic surgery for rectal cancer between September 2009 and March 2018, with a median follow-up period of 48 months. Total mesorectal excision was completed by two certified surgeons using a da Vinci S, Si, or Xi Surgical System with an entirely robotic single-docking technique. The surgical and pathological outcomes, morbidity, and oncological results were examined.

RESULTS

Lateral lymph node dissection was performed in 26 patients (22.6%). Neither conversion to open surgery nor perioperative blood transfusion occurred. Ten patients (8.7%) experienced Clavien-Dindo grade III postoperative complications. Pathologically, both the distal and radial margins were negative in all cases. The 5-year relapse-free survival rates for stages I, II, III, and IV were 93.5%, 100%, 83.8%, and not reached, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in the period before coverage by the health insurance system, robotic surgery for rectal cancer performed by experienced surgeons was safe and technically feasible, with favorable perioperative results and long-term oncological outcomes, including rates of the relapse-free survival.

Robotic Surgery for Malignant Liver Disease: a Systematic Review of Oncological and Surgical Outcomes

Robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery is yet another modification of minimally invasive liver surgery. It is described as feasible and safe from the surgical point of view; however, oncological outcomes need to be adequately analysed to justify the use of this technique when resecting malignant liver tumours. We reviewed existing English medical literature on robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery. We analysed surgical outcomes and oncological outcomes. We analysed operative parameters including operative time, type of hepatectomy, blood loss, conversion rate, morbidity and mortality rates and length of stay. We also analysed oncological outcomes including completeness of resection (R status), recurrence, survival and follow-up data. A total of 582 patients undergoing robot-assisted laparoscopic liver surgery were analysed from 17 eligible publications. Only 5 publications reported survival data. The overall morbidity was 19% with 0.2% reported mortality. R0 resection was achieved in 96% of patients. Robotic liver surgery is feasible and safe with acceptable morbidity and oncological outcomes including resection margins. However, well-designed trials are required to provide evidence in terms of survival and disease-free intervals when performed for malignancy.

Simultaneous Colon and Liver Laparoscopic Resection for Colorectal Cancer with Synchronous Liver Metastases: A Single Center Experience

Background: The one-stage approach for colorectal cancer (CRC) with synchronous liver metastases (SLM) has demonstrated advantages, when feasible, in terms of oncological radicality and reduction in sanitary costs. The simultaneous laparoscopic approach to both colon cancer and liver metastases joins the advantages of mini-invasiveness to the one-stage approach. Methods: During the period from February 2011 to July 2017, a single surgeon performed 17 laparoscopic colorectal operations with simultaneous liver resection for CRC with SLM. Colorectal procedures included 9 rectal resections, 6 left colectomies, and 2 right colectomies. Associated hepatic resections included 1 left hepatectomy, 1 right posterior sectionectomy, 2 segmentectomies, and 13 wedge resections. We analyzed retrospectively the patient's short-term outcome and operative and oncologic results. Results: There was no conversion to open surgery. Six patients (35%) had minor complications (Clavien-Dindo grade I-II), whereas only 2 patients (12%) had major complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV) and no mortality occurred. The median time of discharge was 8.6 (range 5-36) days. We obtained 94% of R0 resection margin on the liver specimen and 100% of negative distal and circumferential margin in case of rectal resection. An average of 20 lymphnodes were retrieved in the colorectal specimen. Conclusions: Simultaneous mini-invasive colorectal and liver resection is a challenging but feasible procedure. The advantages of treating primary cancer and metastases in the same recovery justify the morbidity rate, especially because the most of the complications are minor and no cases of mortality occurred. Further experience is needed to better understand how to reduce the morbidity rate.

Laparoscopic synchronous resection of colorectal cancer and liver metastases: A systematic review

While colorectal and hepatic resections are commonly performed through a laparoscopic approach, the safety and feasibility of total laparoscopic synchronous resections (LSR) of colorectal liver metastasis (CRLM) have not been established. In this systematic review, short- and long-term outcomes were comparable for patients undergoing LSR and open synchronous resection. LSR was safe and feasible for patients with synchronous CRLM and should be considered in well-selected patients.

Robot-assisted liver surgery in a general surgery unit with a "Referral Centre Hub&Spoke Learning Program". Early outcomes after our first 70 consecutive patients

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate safety, feasibility and short-term outcomes of our first 70 consecutive patients treated by robotic-assisted liver resection after a reversal proctoring between a high HPB volume centre and our well-trained center in minimally invasive General Surgery. Six surgeons were involved in this Hub&Spoke learning program.

METHODS

From September 2012 to December 2016, 70 patients underwent robotic-assisted liver resections (RALR). We treated 18 patients affected by colorectal and gastric cancer with synchronous liver lesions suspected for metastases in a one-stage robotic-assisted procedure. For the first 20 procedures we had a tutor in the operatory room, who was present also in the next most difficult procedures.

RESULTS

The 30- and 90-day mortality rate was zero with an overall morbidity rate of 10.1%. Associated surgical procedures were performed in about 65,7% of patients. The observed conversion rate was 10%. The results of the first 20 cases were similar to the next 50 showing a shortned learning curve.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimally invasive robot-assisted liver resection is a safe technique; it allows overcoming many limits of conventional laparoscopy. This innovative, time-enduring Hub&Spoke may allow patients to undergo a proper standard of care also for complex surgical procedures, without the need of reaching referral centres.

Safety and efficacy of synchronous robotic surgery for colorectal cancer with liver metastases

Timing of resection and treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastases varies based on patient characteristics and center protocols. Concerns of increased morbidity and mortality (M&M) related to anesthetic time and blood loss have limited widespread adaptation of synchronous colorectal and liver resections. Furthermore, technical challenges have made minimally invasive synchronous resections less common. We present our series of synchronous robotic surgery for CRC with liver metastases. Retrospective review of prospectively collected data of patients with stage IV CRC with liver metastases treated at a tertiary center from February 2013 to June 2014. Patients who underwent synchronous robotic surgery for CRC with liver metastasis(es) were included and selected by a multidisciplinary cancer committee. Data included patient demographics, disease stage, OR time, EBL, and complications. All resections were performed robotically by the same well-experienced surgeons. A radiologist was present for intraoperative ultrasound. Liver treatment was performed first in consideration of intraoperative bleeding risk. Sixty-six patients with Stage IV CRC were seen at the tertiary center during the study period. Six patients met inclusion criteria (2 male, 4 female). Mean age was 59.3 years and mean BMI was 23.46. Mean of 2.25 liver segments were resected and mean of 1.75 liver segments were ablated. Four patients underwent metastatectomy; three with concurrent microwave ablation. One patient had ablation without resection and another had no identifiable lesion on ultrasound. The colonic resections included 3 low anterior resections, 2 abdominal perineal resections (APR), and 1 right hemicolectomy. Mean operative time was 401 min (349-506 min) with mean EBL of 316 mL (150-1000 mL). No conversions to an open approach occurred. Median length of stay (LOS) was 4.5 days (3-10 days). Complications included delayed wound healing after an APR and a delayed rectal anastomotic failure after ileostomy reversal. There was no 30-day mortality. At a mean follow-up of 19 months, one death occurred at 26 months and the remaining patients had documented metastatic disease. Synchronous resection for metastatic CRC carries risks. We report our series of synchronous robotic surgery for CRC with liver metastases. The robotic approach contributed to low blood loss, appropriate LOS, and no 30-day mortality. Morbidity experienced was consistent with the procedures and not related to the robotic technique. This series supports the potential benefits of synchronous resection from a technical standpoint. Further data are required to determine treatment and survival benefits. Limitations include small number and retrospective review of data.

Laparoscopic versus open 1-stage resection of synchronous liver metastases and primary colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to compare the perioperative and oncologic outcomes of open and laparoscopic approaches for concomitant resection of synchronous colorectal cancer and liver metastases.

METHODS

Between 2006 and 2015, all patients undergoing combined resection of primary colorectal cancer and liver metastases were included in the study (n=43). Laparoscopic and open groups were compared regarding clinical, perioperative and oncologic outcomes.

RESULTS

There were 29 patients in the open group and 14 patients in the laparoscopic group. The groups were similar regarding demographics, comorbidities, histopathological characteristics of the primary tumor and liver metastases. Postoperative complication rate (44.8% vs. 7.1%, P=0.016) was higher, and hospital stay (10 vs. 6.4 days, P=0.001) longer in the open compared to the laparoscopic group. Overall survival (OS) was comparable between the groups (P=0.10); whereas, disease-free survival (DFS) was longer in laparoscopic group (P=0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results, in patients, whose primary colorectal cancer and metastatic liver disease was amenable to a minimally invasive resection, a concomitant laparoscopic approach resulted in less morbidity without compromising oncologic outcomes. This suggests that a laparoscopic approach may be considered in appropriate patients by surgeons with experience in both advanced laparoscopic liver and colorectal techniques.

Simultaneous Minimally Invasive Treatment of Colorectal Neoplasm with Synchronous Liver Metastasis

Purpose. To analyse perioperative and oncological outcomes of minimally invasive simultaneous resection of primary colorectal neoplasm with synchronous liver metastases. Methods. A Medline revision of the current published literature on laparoscopic and robotic-assisted combined colectomy with hepatectomy for synchronous liver metastatic colorectal neoplasm was performed until February 2015. The specific search terms were "liver metastases", "hepatic metastases", "colorectal", "colon", "rectal", "minimally invasive", "laparoscopy", "robotic-assisted", "robotic colorectal and liver resection", "synchronous", and "simultaneous". Results. 20 clinical reports including 150 patients who underwent minimally invasive one-stage procedure were retrospectively analysed. No randomized trials were found. The approach was laparoscopic in 139 patients (92.7%) and robotic in 11 cases (7.3%). The rectum was the most resected site of primary neoplasm (52.7%) and combined liver procedure was in 89% of cases a minor liver resection. One patient (0.7%) required conversion to open surgery. The overall morbidity and mortality rate were 18% and 1.3%, respectively. The most common complication was colorectal anastomotic leakage. Data concerning oncologic outcomes were too heterogeneous in order to gather definitive results. Conclusion. Although no prospective randomized trials are available, one-stage minimally invasive approach seems to show advantages over conventional surgery in terms of postoperative short-term course. On the contrary, more studies are required to define the oncologic values of the minimally invasive combined treatment.

Minimally Invasive Liver Surgery for Hepatic Colorectal Metastases

Minimally invasive surgery has been cautiously introduced in surgical oncology over the last two decades due to a concern of compromised oncological outcomes. Recently, it has been adopted in liver surgery for colorectal metastases. Colorectal cancer is a major cause of cancer-related death in the USA. In addition, liver metastasis is the most common site of distant disease and its resection improves survival. While open resection was the standard of care, laparoscopic liver surgery has become the standard of care for minor liver resections. Laparoscopic liver surgery provides equivalent oncological outcomes with better perioperative results compared to open liver surgery. Robotic liver surgery has been introduced as it is believed to overcome some of the limitations of laparoscopy. Finally, laparoscopic radio-frequency ablation and microwave coagulation can be used as adjuncts in minimally invasive surgery to complement or replace surgical resection when not possible.

Robot-assisted versus open liver resection in the right posterior section

BACKGROUND

Open liver resection is the current standard of care for lesions in the right posterior liver section. The objective of this study was to determine the safety of robot-assisted liver resection for lesions located in segments 6 and 7 in comparison with open surgery.

METHODS

Demographics, comorbidities, clinicopathologic characteristics, surgical treatments, and outcomes from patients who underwent open and robot-assisted liver resection at 2 centers for lesions in the right posterior section between January 2007 and June 2012 were reviewed. A 1:3 matched analysis was performed by individually matching patients in the robotic cohort to patients in the open cohort on the basis of demographics, comorbidities, performance status, tumor stage, and location.

RESULTS

Matched patients undergoing robotic and open liver resections displayed no significant differences in postoperative outcomes as measured by blood loss, transfusion rate, hospital stay, overall complication rate (15.8% vs 13%), R0 negative margin rate, and mortality. Patients undergoing robotic liver surgery had significantly longer operative time (mean, 303 vs 233 minutes) and inflow occlusion time (mean, 75 vs 29 minutes) compared with their open counterparts.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic and open liver resections in the right posterior section display similar safety and feasibility.

Robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: a systematic review and pooled analysis of minor and major hepatectomies

BACKGROUND

Robotic surgery has been introduced to overcome the limitations of conventional laparoscopy. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess the safety and feasibility for three subgroups of robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection: (i) minor resections of easily accessible segments: 2/3, 4B, 5, 6, (ii) minor resections of difficult located segments: 1, 4A, 7, 8 and (iii) major resections: ≥ 4 segments.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library.

RESULTS

Twelve observational, mostly retrospective studies reporting on 363 patients were included. Data were pooled and analyzed. For subgroup (i) (n = 81) the weighted mean operative time was 215 ± 65 min. One conversion (1%) to laparotomy was needed. Weighted mean operative time for subgroup (ii) (n = 17) was 220 ± 60 min. No conversions were needed. For subgroup (iii) (n = 99) the weighted mean operative time was 405 ± 100 min. In this subgroup 8 robotic procedures (8%) were converted to open surgery.

CONCLUSION

Data show that robot-assisted laparoscopic liver resection is feasible in minor resections of all segments and major resections. Larger, prospective studies are warranted to compare the possible advantages of robot-assisted surgery with conventional laparoscopy and open surgery.

Robotic surgery for colorectal cancer: systematic review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Surgical practice has been changed since the introduction of robotic techniques and robotic colorectal surgery is an emerging field. Innovative robotic technologies have helped surgeons overcome many technical difficulties of conventional laparoscopic surgery. Herein, we review the clinical studies regarding the application of surgical robots in resections for colorectal cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted for articles published up to September 9, 2012, using the MEDLINE database. The keywords that were used in various combinations were: "surgical robotics," "robotic surgery," "computer-assisted surgery," "colectomy," "sigmoid resection," "sigmoidectomy," and "rectal resection."

RESULTS

Fifty-nine articles reporting on robot-assisted resections of colon and/or rectum were identified and 41 studies were finally included in the analysis. A total of 1635 colorectal procedures were performed: 254 right colectomies, 185 left colectomies/sigmoid resections, 969 anterior resections, 182 abdominoperineal or intersphincteric resections, 34 colectomies (without being specified as right or left), and 11 total/subtotal colectomies. In general, blood loss, conversion rates, and complications were low but the operative time was longer than the open procedures, whereas the duration of hospitalization was shorter. The number of harvested lymph nodes was also quite satisfactory.

CONCLUSIONS

Robotic colorectal operations provide favorable results, with acceptable operative times and low conversion rates and morbidity. Surgical robots may provide additional benefits treating challenging pathologies, such as rectal cancer. Further clinical studies and long-term follow-up are required to better evaluate the outcomes of robotic colorectal surgery.

SAGES TAVAC safety and effectiveness analysis: da Vinci ® Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA)

BACKGROUND

The da Vinci(®) Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is a computer-assisted (robotic) surgical system designed to enable and enhance minimally invasive surgery. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared computer-assisted surgical systems for use by trained physicians in an operating room environment for laparoscopic surgical procedures in general, cardiac, colorectal, gynecologic, head and neck, thoracic and urologic surgical procedures. There are substantial numbers of peer-reviewed papers regarding the da Vinci(®) Surgical System, and a thoughtful assessment of evidence framed by clinical opinion is warranted.

METHODS

The SAGES da Vinci(®) TAVAC sub-committee performed a literature review of the da Vinci(®) Surgical System regarding gastrointestinal surgery. Conclusions by the sub-committee were vetted by the SAGES TAVAC Committee and SAGES Executive Board. Following revisions, the document was evaluated by the TAVAC Committee and Executive Board again for final approval.

RESULTS

Several conclusions were drawn based on expert opinion organized by safety, efficacy, and cost for robotic foregut, bariatric, hepatobiliary/pancreatic, colorectal surgery, and single-incision cholecystectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Gastrointestinal surgery with the da Vinci(®) Surgical System is safe and comparable, but not superior to standard laparoscopic approaches. Although clinically acceptable, its use may be costly for select gastrointestinal procedures. Current data are limited to the da Vinci(®) Surgical System; further analyses are needed.

Outcomes of robotic vs laparoscopic hepatectomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic liver resections.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Library Central. Participants of any age and sex, who underwent robotic or laparoscopic liver resection were considered following these criteria: (1) studies comparing robotic and laparoscopic liver resection; (2) studies reporting at least one perioperative outcome; and (3) if more than one study was reported by the same institute, only the most recent was included. The primary outcome measures were set for estimated blood loss, operative time, conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and mortality rates, hospital stay and major hepatectomy rates.

RESULTS

A total of 7 articles, published between 2010 and 2014, fulfilled the selection criteria. The laparoscopic approach was associated with a significant reduction in blood loss and lower operative time (MD = 83.96, 95%CI: 10.51-157.41, P = 0.03; MD = 68.43, 95%CI: 39.22-97.65, P < 0.00001, respectively). No differences were found with respect to conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and hospital stay.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopic liver resection resulted in reduced blood loss and shorter surgical times compared to robotic liver resections. There was no difference in conversion rate, R1 resection rate, morbidity and length of postoperative stay.

A systematic review of robotic-assisted liver resection and meta-analysis of robotic versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic neoplasms

BACKGROUND

Robotic-assisted liver resection (RALR) was introduced as procedures of overcoming the limitations of traditional laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). The aim of this review was to evaluate the surgical results of RALR from all published studies and the results of comparative studies of RALR versus LLR for hepatic neoplasm.

METHODS

Eligible studies involved RALR that published between January 2001 and December 2014 were reviewed systematically. Comparisons between RALS and LLR were pooled and analyzed by meta-analytical techniques using random- or fixed-effects models, as appropriate.

RESULTS

In total, 29 studies, involving 537 patients undergoing RALR, were identified. The most common RALR procedure was a wedge resection and segmentectomy (28.67%), followed by right hepatectomy (17.88%), left lateral sectionectomy (13.22%), and bisegmentectomy (9.12%). The conversion and complication rates were 5.59 and 11.36%, respectively. The most common reasons for conversion were bleeding (46.67%) and unclear tumor margin (33.33%). Intracavitary fluid collections and bile leaks (40.98%) were the most frequently occurring morbidities. Nine studies, involving 774 patients, were included in meta-analysis. RALR had a longer operative time compared with LLR [mean difference (MD) 48.49; 95% confidence interval (CI) 22.49-74.49 min; p = 0.0003]. There were no significant differences between the two groups in blood loss [MD 31.53; 95% CI -14.74 to 77.79 mL; p = 0.18], hospital stay [MD 0.13; 95% CI -0.54 to 0.80 days; p = 0.18], postoperative overall morbidity [odds ratio (OR) 0.76; 95% CI 0.49-1.19; p = 0.23], and surgical margin status (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.33-1.12; p = 0.11); cost was greater than robotic surgery (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

RALR and LLR display similar safety, feasibility, and effectiveness for hepatectomies, but further studies are needed before any final conclusion can be drawn, especially in terms of oncologic and cost-effectiveness outcomes.

Indications for liver surgery: laparoscopic or robotic approach

Laparoscopic liver resections have been demonstrated to be safe and effective with the advantages of a shorter hospital stay, less blood loss, less adhesions and better postoperative recovery compared to open surgery. However, indications are usually confined to peripheral, small lesions, due to issues intrinsic to the approach. In the effort to overcome some of these technical limitations, robotic technology has been developed, with encouraging findings. We performed a review of the literature to assess the current indications for laparoscopic hepatic resections and to investigate the role of robotics in broadening the application of minimally invasive liver surgery. Although a paucity of data exists, especially regarding long-term oncological outcomes and specific comparisons with laparoscopy, robotics has been proved to facilitate several complex liver procedures, including parenchyma-saving resections. Thus, the number of patients who can benefit from less invasive, conservative approach is potentially increased.

Comparison of minimally invasive and open colorectal resections for patients undergoing simultaneous R0 resection for liver metastases: a propensity score analysis

PURPOSE

The role of minimally invasive colorectal resection for patients undergoing a simultaneous resection for synchronous liver metastases had not been established. This study compared the short- and long-term outcomes between minimally invasive and open colorectal resection for patients undergoing simultaneous resection for liver metastases.

METHODS

This study reviewed 101 consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous colorectal resection and R0 resection of synchronous liver metastases between January 2008 and December 2012. In the study, 36 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive colorectal resection were matched with 36 patients who had an open approach by propensity scoring. The analyzed variables included patient and tumor characteristics and short-term and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, the two groups had similar clinicopathologic variables. No patient undergoing the minimally invasive procedure experienced conversion to the open technique. No postoperative mortality occurred in either group. In the minimally invasive group, the estimated blood loss (P < 0.007), bowel function return time (P < 0.016), and postoperative hospital stay (P < 0.011) were significantly lower than those in the open group, although the operating time was significantly longer (P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative complications were observed between the groups. The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the 5-year overall survival rate (51 vs. 55 %; P = 0.794) and disease-free survival rate (38 vs. 27 %; P = 0.860).

CONCLUSION

Minimally invasive colorectal resection with simultaneous resection of liver metastases has an outcome similar to open approach but some short-term advantages.

European Association of Endoscopic Surgeons (EAES) consensus statement on the use of robotics in general surgery

Following an extensive literature search and a consensus conference with subject matter experts the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. Robotic surgery is still at its infancy, and there is a great potential in sophisticated electromechanical systems to perform complex surgical tasks when these systems evolve. 2. To date, in the vast majority of clinical settings, there is little or no advantage in using robotic systems in general surgery in terms of clinical outcome. Dedicated parameters should be addressed, and high quality research should focus on quality of care instead of routine parameters, where a clear advantage is not to be expected. 3. Preliminary data demonstrates that robotic system have a clinical benefit in performing complex procedures in confined spaces, especially in those that are located in unfavorable anatomical locations. 4. There is a severe lack of high quality data on robotic surgery, and there is a great need for rigorously controlled, unbiased clinical trials. These trials should be urged to address the cost-effectiveness issues as well. 5. Specific areas of research should include complex hepatobiliary surgery, surgery for gastric and esophageal cancer, revisional surgery in bariatric and upper GI surgery, surgery for large adrenal masses, and rectal surgery. All these fields show some potential for a true benefit of using current robotic systems. 6. Robotic surgery requires a specific set of skills, and needs to be trained using a dedicated, structured training program that addresses the specific knowledge, safety issues and skills essential to perform this type of surgery safely and with good outcomes. It is the responsibility of the corresponding professional organizations, not the industry, to define the training and credentialing of robotic basic skills and specific procedures. 7. Due to the special economic environment in which robotic surgery is currently employed special care should be taken in the decision making process when deciding on the purchase, use and training of robotic systems in general surgery. 8. Professional organizations in the sub-specialties of general surgery should review these statements and issue detailed, specialty-specific guidelines on the use of specific robotic surgery procedures in addition to outlining the advanced robotic surgery training required to safely perform such procedures.

Robotics in general surgery: an evidence-based review

Since its introduction, robotic surgery has been rapidly adopted to the extent that it has already assumed an important position in the field of general surgery. This rapid progress is quantitative as well as qualitative. In this review, we focus on the relatively common procedures to which robotic surgery has been applied in several fields of general surgery, including gastric, colorectal, hepato-biliary-pancreatic, and endocrine surgery, and we discuss the results to date and future possibilities. In addition, the advantages and limitations of the current robotic system are reviewed, and the advanced technologies and instruments to be applied in the near future are introduced. Such progress is expected to facilitate the widespread introduction of robotic surgery in additional fields and to solve existing problems.

Current status of robotic liver resection: a systematic review

Robotic surgery is an emerging technique for the management of patients with liver disease, and only a limited number of reports are available. A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane), including only case series with more than five patients, identified nine series (with one from our institution), which totaled to 232 patients. Overall, the peri-operative outcomes of the reported patients are similar to those utilizing the laparoscopic and open approaches. Robotic surgery appears to be a valid option for selected hepatic resections in experienced hands. It could represent a bridge toward minimally invasive approaches for confirmed liver surgeons. By contrast, the long-term oncological outcomes remain uncertain and need further studies.

Robotic surgery of the liver: Italian experience and review of the literature

Robotic liver resection is a new promising minimally invasive surgical technique not yet validated by level I evidence. During recent years, the application of the laparoscopic approach to liver resection has grown less than other abdominal specialties due to the intrinsic limitations of laparoscopic instruments. Robotics can overcome these limitations above all for complex operations. A review of the literature on major hepatic surgery was conducted on PubMed using selected keywords. Two hundred and thirty-five patients in 17 series were analysed and outcomes such as operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, complications, conversion rate, and costs were described. The most commonly performed procedures were wedge resection and segmentectomy, but the predominance of major hepatectomies performed with robotic surgery is likely due to the superior control achieved by the robotic system.

The conversion and complication rates were 4.2% and 13.4%, respectively. Intracavitary fluid collections and bile leaks were the most frequently occurring morbidities. The mean operation time was 285 min. The mean intraoperative blood loss was 50–280 mL. The mean postoperative hospital stay was four to seven days. Overall survival and long-term outcomes were not reported. Robotic liver surgery in Italy has become a clinical reality that is gaining increasing acceptance; a survey was carried out on robotic surgery, which showed that it is perceived as a significant advantage for operators and a consistent gain for the patient. More than 100 robotic hepatic resections have been performed in Italy where important robotic training schools are active.

Robotic liver surgery is feasible and safe in trained and experienced hands. Further evaluation is required to assess the improvement in outcomes and long-term oncologic follow-up.

Simultaneous laparoscopic resection of primary colorectal cancer and associated liver metastases: a systematic review

As many as 25 % of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have liver metastases at presentation. However, the optimal strategy for resectable synchronous colorectal liver metastasis remains controversial. Despite the increasing use of laparoscopy in colorectal and liver resections, combined laparoscopic resection of the primary CRC and synchronous liver metastasis is rarely performed. The potential benefits of this approach are the possibility to perform a radical operation with small incisions, earlier recovery, and reduction in costs. The aim of this study was to review the literature on feasibility and short-term results of simultaneous laparoscopic resection. We conducted a systematic search of all articles published until February 2013. Search terms included: hepatectomy [Mesh], "liver resection," laparoscopy [Mesh], hand-assisted laparoscopy [Mesh], surgical procedures, minimally invasive [Mesh], colectomy [Mesh], colorectal neoplasms [Mesh], and "colorectal resections." No randomized trials are available. All data have been reported as case reports, case series, or case-control studies. Thirty-nine minimally invasive simultaneous resections were identified in 14 different articles. There were 9 (23 %) major hepatic resections. The most performed liver resection was left lateral sectionectomy in 26 (67 %) patients. Colorectal resections included low rectal resections with total mesorectal excision, right and left hemicolectomies, and anterior resections. Despite the lack of high-quality evidence, the laparoscopic combined procedure appeared to be feasible and safe, even with major hepatectomies. Good patient selection and refined surgical technique are the keys to successful simultaneous resection. Simultaneous left lateral sectionectomy associated with colorectal resection should be routinely proposed.

Robotic liver resection: initial experience with three-arm robotic and single-port robotic technique

Robotic liver surgery was found to offer advantages not inherent in conventional laparoscopic liver resection.

Background and Objective:

Robotic-assisted surgery offers a solution to fundamental limitations of conventional laparoscopic surgery, and its use is gaining wide popularity. However, the application of this technology has yet to be established in hepatic surgery.

Methods:

A retrospective analysis of our prospectively collected liver surgery database was performed. Over a 6-month period, all consecutive patients who underwent robotic-assisted hepatic resection for a liver neoplasm were included. Demographics, operative time, and morbidity encountered were evaluated.

Results:

A total of 7 robotic-assisted liver resections were performed, including 2 robotic-assisted single-port access liver resections with the da Vinci-Si Surgical System (Intuitive Surgical Sunnyvalle, Calif.) USA. The mean age was 44.6 years (range, 21–68 years); there were 5 male and 2 female patients. The mean operative time (± SD) was 61.4 ± 26.7 minutes; the mean operative console time (± SD) was 38.2 ± 23 minutes. No conversions were required. The mean blood loss was 100.7 mL (range, 10–200 mL). The mean hospital stay (± SD) was 2 ± 0.4 days. No postoperative morbidity related to the procedure or death was encountered.

Conclusion:

Our initial experience with robotic liver resection confirms that this technique is both feasible and safe. Robotic-assisted technology appears to improve the precision and ergonomics of single-access surgery while preserving the known benefits of laparoscopic surgery, including cosmesis, minimal morbidity, and faster recovery.

Robotic-assisted hepatic resection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Currently, hepatic resections are being performed with robotic-assisted systems. There is little evidence regarding the outcomes of this surgical approach. This study aims to systematically review the outcomes related to robotic-assisted hepatic resections.

METHODS

A systematic search of electronic databases was completed. All human studies, limited to adults, published between 2000 to August 2011 were included.

RESULTS

Eight studies yielded a total of 170 procedures. The overall morbidity rate was 11.6% (range 0-39%). There were no mortalities reported following robotic-assisted hepatic resection. Mean operative time was 264.8 minutes, with a mean hospital length of stay of 7.8 days. Rate of conversion was 6.6%. Cost was greater than either laparoscopy or open hepatic surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Our systematic review suggests robotic-assisted hepatic resection is safe and feasible, with low mortality and morbidity rates. Further research is needed to determine if oncological outcomes are similar.

Minimally invasive surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer: recent advances and future developments

SUMMARY Laparoscopic rectal surgery is technically challenging, difficult to perform and has a steep learning curve. Initial studies comparing laparoscopic and open total mesorectal excision indicate that laparoscopy is associated with decreased hospital stays, reduced postoperative pain and equivalent oncologic outcomes, although definitive randomized controlled trial results evaluating laparoscopy for rectal cancer are still pending. Robotic proctectomy is thought to provide additional benefits to the patient (i.e., reduced sexual and bladder dysfunction postoperatively). It can be performed either as a hybrid technique accompanied with laparoscopic splenic flexure mobilization, or as an entirely robotic procedure. Future investigations into robotic surgery and other new technologies that have potential use in rectal cancer surgery will be critically important as we seek to optimize patient outcomes.

Robot assistance in liver surgery: a real advantage over a fully laparoscopic approach? Results of a comparative bi-institutional analysis

BACKGROUND

Laparoscopic liver resection (LAPR) is safe and feasible with a better postoperative course as compared to open resections. Robot-assisted liver surgery (ROBR) is a potential alternative to LAPR. In this study we compare outcomes between ROBR and LAPR.

METHODS

Forty patients underwent ROBR and 223 LAPR for various indications. The surgical outcomes of two institutions, each with a specific advanced experience in laparoscopic and robotic surgery, were reviewed.

RESULTS

The major hepatectomy rate was significantly higher in LAPR (16.6% vs 0%, p = 0.011) while a parenchyma-preserving approach was favoured in ROBR (55% vs 34.1%, p = 0.019). More nodules were resected in the ROBR group (1.97 ± 1.4 vs 1.57 ± 1.1, p = 0.04). Overall conversion rate was 8/40 (20%) in the ROBR and 17/223 (7.6%) in the LAPR group (p = 0.034). Mean blood loss was 330 ± 303 ml and 174 ± 133 ml for the ROBR and LAPR groups, respectively (p = 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher conversion rates and blood loss, robot-assisted surgery may allow the resection of more liver lesions, especially those located in the postero-superior segments, facilitating parenchyma-saving surgery with a comparable complication rate with respect to LAPR.

Laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatic colorectal metastases -- a retrospective comparative cohort analysis and literature review

Background

Laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) for management of hepatic colorectal metastases (HCRM) is commonly being performed; however, there are limited reports comparing LH outcomes with those of open hepatectomy (OH) procedure. The aim of the present study was to compare perioperative outcomes between the LH and OH procedures performed at a single medical center.

Methods

From Jan 2008 to May 2012, 30 patients with pathologically confirmed HCRM underwent LH, and 140 patients underwent OH at our hospital. Patients' demographics, perioperative outcomes were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

2 patients (6.7%) in the LH group underwent laparotomies for intraoperative hemorrhage. The LH group had an increased surgical duration (235 min vs. 365 min, (P<0.001), shorter hospital stay (7.5 days vs. 11.5 days, P<0.001), and fewer complications (26.2% vs. 55%, P<0.001) than the OH group. However, in a matched cohort comparison of 30 LH cases and 30 OH cases, no significant variations were observed in the following parameters: surgical duration (235 min vs. 255 min, P = 0.23), positive margin rates (6.7% vs. 0.0%, P = 0.27), or postoperative hematological changes. LH patients had less estimated blood loss (215 ml vs. 385 ml, P<0.001), less morbidity (26.2% vs. 50%, P = 0.02), shorter hospital stay (7.5 days vs. 11.5 days, P<0.001), and lower analgesic requests than with those in the OH group.

Conclusions

LH for metastatic colorectal cancer is a safe and feasible treatment, even in patients who underwent prior laparotomy surgeries and provides significantly less morbidity and shorter hospital stay than OH, without compromising curability or increasing morbidity.

No differences in short-term morbidity and mortality after robot-assisted laparoscopic versus laparoscopic resection for colonic cancer: a case-control study of 263 patients

BACKGROUND

Robot-assisted laparoscopy has been reported to be a safe and feasible alternative to traditional laparoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare short-term results in patients with colonic cancer who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic colonic resection (RC) or laparoscopic colonic resection (LC).

METHODS

The study was a retrospective case control study of all patients with colonic cancer who underwent RC from March 2010 to March 2012 or LC from January 2009 to December 2011 at a tertiary-care university hospital. Data were retrieved from the national chart database and patient journals. Biochemical markers [C-reactive protein (CRP), hemoglobin, white blood cell count, and thrombocyte count] were recorded before surgery and for the first 3 days after surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients underwent RC and 162 patients underwent LC. There were no significant differences in the rate of conversion to open surgery, number of permanent enterostomies, number of intraoperative complications, level of postoperative cellular stress response, number of postoperative complications, length of postoperative hospital stay, or 30-day mortality between the two groups. There was a significantly longer setup time for RC (77.1 vs. 69.7 min, P = 0.000), but surgical time was significantly shorter for RC (165.8 vs. 183.4 min, P = 0.006) and there was no difference in the overall procedure time (254.0 vs. 243.6 min, P = 0.086).

CONCLUSION

We found RC to be a safe and feasible alternative to LC for colonic cancer. We found that for RC surgical time was shorter and overall procedure time was comparable to that for LC; however, these results should be confirmed in future randomized clinical trials.

Laparoscopic resection of colorectal cancer facilitates simultaneous surgery of synchronous liver metastases

AIM

Combined resection of colorectal cancer with surgery for synchronous liver metastases (LM) still remains controversial because of the possible higher morbidity rate, the necessity of an adequate abdominal approach for both resections and the impact on oncological results. However, laparoscopy may be beneficial in terms of operative results and could facilitate this combined procedure. The aim was to assess the benefit of the laparoscopic approach for colorectal cancer resection in patients undergoing simultaneous liver resection for synchronous LM.

METHOD

From 2006 to 2011, all patients with colorectal cancer and resectable synchronous LM, for which the total length of the procedure was suspected to be less than 8 h, underwent colorectal laparoscopic resection combined with open and/or laparoscopic liver surgery. In order to identify selection criteria, a comparative analysis was performed between patients with and without major postoperative morbidity.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients underwent combined surgery with laparoscopic colectomy (n = 31) and proctectomy (n = 20). The conversion rate was 8%. Liver resections included major surgery (n = 10) and minor surgery (n = 41). Extraction of the colorectal specimen was performed through an incision used for open liver resection, except in seven patients who underwent a total laparoscopic procedure. Overall and major morbidity rates were 55% and 25%, respectively. Median (range) hospital stay was 16 (6-40) days. Regarding patient and tumour characteristics, no independent criteria of major morbidity risk were identified.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that laparoscopic colorectal resection combined with liver resection for synchronous LM was feasible and safe. Moreover, laparoscopy facilitates the surgical abdominal approach for combined colorectal and liver resection.

Systematic review of robotic liver resection

Background

Robotic liver resection has emerged as a new modality in the field of minimally invasive surgery. However, the effectiveness of this approach for liver resection is not yet known.

Methods

A literature survey was performed using specific search phrases in PubMed. Case series that focused on biliary reconstruction were excluded. Characteristics, such as patient demographics, perioperative outcomes, and oncological results for colorectal liver metastasis and hepatocellular carcinoma were analyzed.

Results

Nineteen series that described the cases of 217 eligible patients were reviewed. The most commonly performed procedures were wedge resection and segmentectomy. Right hepatectomy was performed in a few specialized centers. The conversion and complication rates were 4.6 and 20.3 %, respectively. The most common reason for conversion was unclear tumor margin. Intra-abdominal fluid collection was the most frequently occurring morbidity. Mean operation time was 200–507 min. Mean intraoperative blood loss was 50–660 mL, with a tendency toward increased blood loss observed in series that included major hepatectomies. Mean postoperative hospital stay was 5.5–11.7 days. The longest mean follow-up time was 36 months for colorectal liver metastasis and 25.1 months in hepatocellular carcinoma. Disease-free survival for mixed malignancies was comparable to that after laparoscopic procedures. Overall survival was not reported.

Conclusions

Robotic liver resection is safe and feasible for experienced surgeons with advanced laparoscopic skills. Long-term oncologic outcomes are unclear, but short-term perioperative results seem comparable to those of conventional laparoscopic liver resection.

Technical aspects of robotic proctectomy

Robotic proctectomy is at the forefront of surgical innovation, and interest in this technique is rapidly increasing. The advantages of robotic techniques, such as enhanced visualization and improved dexterity along with tireless retraction and the addition of a "fourth arm" are reported to confer an advantage in the pelvis. It is unknown what long-term outcomes may emerge from ongoing clinical trials; however, early studies suggest improved perioperative and oncologic outcomes. Proponents of robotics suggest that robot-assisted procedures are associated with decreased complication rates and fewer conversions to open. This article reviews the pertinent literature on robotic total mesorectal excision and the early reported outcomes. The 3-arm, 4-arm laparoscopic-assisted, and the 4-arm totally robotic techniques for performing robotic proctectomy are described in detail, including port placement and patient position as well as robot docking.

Robotic resection compared with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcome

AIM

The study aimed to compare robotic rectal resection with laparoscopic rectal resection for cancer. Robotic surgery has been used successfully in many branches of surgery but there is little evidence in the literature on its use in rectal cancer.

METHODS

  We performed a systematic review of the available literature in order to evaluate the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of robotic versus laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer. We compared robotic and laparoscopic surgery with respect to twelve end-points including operative and recovery outcomes, early postoperative mortality and morbidity, and oncological parameters. A subgroup analysis of patients undergoing full-robotic or robot-assisted rectal resection and robotic total mesorectal excision was carried out. All aspects of Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metanalysis (PRISMA) statement were followed to conduct this systematic review. Comprehensive electronic search strategies were developed using the following electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, OVID, Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EBM reviews and CINAHL. Randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials comparing robotic and laparoscopic resection for rectal cancer were included. No language or publication status restrictions were imposed. A data-extraction sheet was developed based on the data extraction template of the Cochrane Group. The statistical analysis was performed using the odd ratio (OR) for categorical variables and the weighted mean difference (WMD) for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Eight non randomized studies were identified that included 854 patients in total, 344 (40.2%) in the robotic group and 510 (59.7%) in the laparoscopic group. Meta-analysis suggested that the conversion rate to open surgery in the robotic group was significantly lower than that with laparoscopic surgery (OR = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.12-0.57, P = 0.0007). There were no significant differences in operation time, length of hospital stay, time to resume regular diet, postoperative morbidity and mortality, and the oncological accuracy of resection.

CONCLUSION

Robotic surgery for rectal cancer has a lower conversion rate and a similar operative time compared with laparoscopic surgery, with no difference in recovery, oncological and postoperative outcomes.

Totally laparoscopic strategies for the management of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastasis

INTRODUCTION

Laparoscopy is an accepted treatment for colorectal cancer and liver metastases, but there is no consensus for its use in the management of synchronous liver metastases (SCRLM). The purpose of this study was to evaluate totally laparoscopic strategies in the management of colorectal cancer with synchronous liver metastases.

METHODS

Patients presenting to Ninewells Hospital between July 2007 and August 2010, with adenocarcinoma of the colon and rectum with synchronous liver metastases were considered. Patients underwent simultaneous laparoscopic liver and colon cancer resection, a staged laparoscopic resection of SCRLM and colon cancer, or simultaneous colon resection and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of SCRLM. Primary endpoints were in-hospital morbidity and mortality, total hospital stay, intraoperative blood loss, duration of surgery, and resection margin status.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients presented with synchronous colorectal liver metastases. Thirteen patients underwent a simultaneous laparoscopic liver and colon resection (median operating time, 370 (range, 190-540) min; median hospital stay, 7 (range, 3-54) days), seven patients had a staged laparoscopic resection of SCRLM and primary colon cancer (median operating time, 530 (range, 360-980) min; median hospital stay 14, (range, 6-51) days), and eight patients underwent laparoscopic colon resection and RFA of SCRLM (median operating time, 310 (range, 240-425) min; median hospital stay, 8 (range, 6-13) days). There were no conversions to an open procedure. Overall in-hospital morbidity and mortality was 28 and 0 % respectively. An R0 resection margin was achieved in 91 % of the resection group. At a median follow-up of 26 (range, 18-55) months, 19 (90 %) patients remain disease-free.

CONCLUSIONS

Totally laparoscopic strategies for the radical treatment of stage IV colorectal cancer are feasible with low morbidity and favorable outcomes. A laparoscopic approach for the simultaneous management of SCRLM and primary colon cancer is associated with reduced surgical access trauma, postoperative morbidity, and hospital stay with no compromise in short-term oncological outcome.